(2018/07/19 17:52), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
+1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing before.)
But since this is definitely a matter of PG12, ISTM that it's wise to work
on this after addressing the issue in [1]. My concern is: if we do this
refactoring now, we might need two patches for fixing the issue in case of
backpatching as the fix might need to change those executor functions.
The only thing in [1] that would conflict with this patch is the 0002
(and possibly 0001) patch in [2]. We haven't yet decided anything
about whether those patches can be back-patched or not. I think it's
going to take much longer time for the actual solution to arise. But
we don't have to wait for it to commit this patch as well as 0001 and
0002 patches in [2]
I've just started catching up the discussions in [1], so I don't think I
understand those fully, but it appears that we haven't yet reached a
consensus on what to do for that issue.
because a. the larger solution is not likely to be
back-patchable b. it's going to take much longer time. We don't have
any estimate about how much longer it's going to take.
I don't understand the solution yet, so I'll study about that.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
